You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Dear forum members,
Eupedia moved to a new server last week. If the forum tells you that the page has unsafe scripts, or if anything doesn't work properly on the forum, just clear your browser cache and cookies and everything should go back to normal.

half way into reading the book Goths and it states that visigoths means west goth and ostrogoth means east goth. The visigoths never appeared prior to when goths settled in sarmatia. The westgoths where from Scanza in southern sweden as well as gotland, while the ostrogoths where from east german and baltic lands.
so, the visigoths could only be swedish HG and not east or west germanic

Are suevi west germanic tribe ? , they appear in history as being south of mecklenbug basically just bordering old east and west germany.
The suebi where known to fashion their hair in the "suebian knot" which is basically a finnic fashion. But then again , some say they where on the Rhine with the macromanni tribe .........seems to me thay have never been truly positioned http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suebian_knot
if they are from Holstein, then they would have been nordic at the time in question

Yes, I was showing the Visigoths' migrational history from their migration to Scandinavia (at which time they weren't differentiated from the Ostrogoths) until their arrival to Iberia. East Germanic has a linguistic, not geographical, connotation.
The Sueves were indeed West Germanic, specifically (along with others) the ancestors of the Upper German dialects spoken today. It should be noted, however, that only around 20,000-50,000 Sueves migrated to Iberia, while the rest migrated south and came to form part of the Alamanni (the name of Swabia comes from the Sueves).

Oh I see, he places I1d3 as nearly 1000 years older than Nordtvedt does, and suggests that it came out of Finland. If true, that does change the picture in Finland significantly. Still, I'm hesitant to trust his dating, which is much older for I1 as a whole as well.

By the way, if anyone is interested in the technical aspects of the above disagreement between Nordtvedt's calculations vs. Robb's calculations of TMRCAs, there is an interesting discussion going on right now, so far like this:

Originally Posted by Terry Robb

My contention is that one should not put too much faith in the ASD/Variance method for computing TMRCA.

Originally Posted by Ken Nordtvedt

Yeah, for years we have been stressing this on this list --- coalescence age estimate is not a tree tmrca estimate --- and you have been estimating coalescence age

Originally Posted by Terry Robb

I have just been applying your ASD/Variance formula for purposes of this discussion in regards to TMRCA. I use a completely different methodology myself for the TMRCA and the other things I want to estimate. Just used the ASD method to illustrate one problem with it, and to share that finding with others.

So effectively, we are now in agreement (and as you say, the people on this list have been stressing this) that one should not put too much faith into the ASD/Variance method -- which you have implemented as part of your Generations6.xls script -- for estimating what one might have thought was the TMRCA.

I certainly agree with that.

Originally Posted by Ken Nordtvedt

No, we are not effectively in agreement. There are several kinds of variance packages:

And there are even nested variances which combine correlated variances to measure special ancient branch intervals.

You can not make a combined statement under the combo description "ASD/Variance method" to grade all variances.
And one should certainly not use one that does not estimate tmrca in reaching a judgment about abilities to estimate tmrca.

I think agreement can be said for the statement that self-variance estimations of coalescence age (as well as its true value) are dependent on structural details inside a tree resulting in interpretation cloudiness.

As I mentioned, who is better at TMRCA calculations will affect our interpretation of the Finnish spike in particular, and maybe also the Welsh spike, as the older the dating is (that is, if Robb is right), the less likely it is Germanic in those areas.

By the way, if anyone is interested in the technical aspects of the above disagreement between Nordtvedt's calculations vs. Robb's calculations of TMRCAs, there is an interesting discussion going on right now, so far like this:

As I mentioned, who is better at TMRCA calculations will affect our interpretation of the Finnish spike in particular, and maybe also the Welsh spike, as the older the dating is (that is, if Robb is right), the less likely it is Germanic in those areas.

I think we need to view and accept both men as they seem to know what they are talking about, besides KN last sentence basically says he will not argue the point. and will accept the view

As for me, I find TR site easier to understand, but thats probably because I do not know anywhere near enough the subject as you do

TR map does bring another aspect especially the J2 area

TR's terminologyAAA appears to be the oldest grouping and it is widely spread across northern Europe, although it peaks in England and Germany.

In the "AAA" cluster/clan, each "A" means an ancestral value at the appropriate STR marker. And any "B" would mean a derived (mutated) value.

Has anyone been following the latest round of SNPs coming out for I1? One of the most interesting results so far is that I1*-P (a largely Polish/possibly Pomeranian-centered one) and I1*-AS4 (the weirder Welsh one) are turning up negative for SNPs while others are positive, and T2 got its own SNP but is negative for others. This will likely place all 3 clusters a bit further back on the I1 tree than their STRs suggested. It will be really interesting to see how Nordtvedt's TMRCA calculations go after being informed by these new SNPs. The new calculations will probably have a lot to say about the question presented in this thread.

In the meantime, while we wait for this to be finalized, Nordtvedt has a new approximated I1 tree to give an idea, called "Tree for I1.ppt" here. Robb has also been doing updates.

Has anyone been following the latest round of SNPs coming out for I1? One of the most interesting results so far is that I1*-P (a largely Polish/possibly Pomeranian-centered one) and I1*-AS4 (the weirder Welsh one) are turning up negative for SNPs while others are positive, and T2 got its own SNP but is negative for others. This will likely place all 3 clusters a bit further back on the I1 tree than their STRs suggested. It will be really interesting to see how Nordtvedt's TMRCA calculations go after being informed by these new SNPs. The new calculations will probably have a lot to say about the question presented in this thread.

In the meantime, while we wait for this to be finalized, Nordtvedt has a new approximated I1 tree to give an idea, called "Tree for I1.ppt" here. Robb has also been doing updates.

Thank you for this information.
Btw, until there isn't some new development which would imply different conclusion, for me, I-Z63 spread through Eastern Europe with Goths.

Has anyone been following the latest round of SNPs coming out for I1? One of the most interesting results so far is that I1*-P (a largely Polish/possibly Pomeranian-centered one) and I1*-AS4 (the weirder Welsh one) are turning up negative for SNPs while others are positive, and T2 got its own SNP but is negative for others. This will likely place all 3 clusters a bit further back on the I1 tree than their STRs suggested. It will be really interesting to see how Nordtvedt's TMRCA calculations go after being informed by these new SNPs. The new calculations will probably have a lot to say about the question presented in this thread.

In the meantime, while we wait for this to be finalized, Nordtvedt has a new approximated I1 tree to give an idea, called "Tree for I1.ppt" here. Robb has also been doing updates.

That's very interesting indeed. We can in all likelihood rule out an Anglo-Saxon or Norman/Viking origin for the Welsh I1*-AS4 then.

I expected that the Bothnian I1 would predate the Germanic core of I1, as I explained in the Haplogroup I1 page. It also makes sense to find I1 pre-dating the Germanic expansion I1 in other places around Scandinavia like Pomerania/Poland (and probably also Germany and the Low Countries) as it is unlikely that I1 was present only in Scandinavia before the Bronze Age.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What is the use of living, if it be not to strive for noble causes and to make this muddled world a better place for those who will live in it after we are gone?", Winston Churchill.

Btw, until there isn't some new development which would imply different conclusion, for me, I-Z63 spread through Eastern Europe with Goths.

[I-Z63 is the new SNP-based name for I1-T2] Agreed... the distribution still seems to imply that I1-Z63 is wholly Germanic, despite the fact that it is a little further back in the tree than expected. It's hard for me to see the possibility for another conclusion at the moment.

Originally Posted by Maciamo

We can in all likelihood rule out an Anglo-Saxon or Norman/Viking origin for the Welsh I1*-AS4 then... It also makes sense to find I1 pre-dating the Germanic expansion I1 in other places around Scandinavia like Pomerania/Poland (and probably also Germany and the Low Countries) as it is unlikely that I1 was present only in Scandinavia before the Bronze Age.

Also agreed... it's looking like I1*-AS4 and I1*-P may be the non-Germanic I1 this topic is looking for. At least, they're suddenly the best candidates. That conclusion is pending plenty more analysis, of course.

Originally Posted by Maciamo

I expected that the Bothnian I1 would predate the Germanic core of I1, as I explained in the Haplogroup I1 page.

I don't see that we've learned anything more here about I1d3, which means that we still disagree about it.

[I-Z63 is the new SNP-based name for I1-T2]
I don't see that we've learned anything more here about I1d3, which means that we still disagree about it.

It depends how you look at it. If Z58 is the only true Germanic branch, then I1-L22 (Norse, Ultra-Norse, Bothnian), I1-T2, I1-AS4, I1-P and I1b all evolved outside the core of Germanic culture that developed in the Bronze Age around Denmark, North Germany and southern Sweden. I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case and the I1d-Norse and I1d-Ultra-Norse were only absorbed in the Iron Age expansion of Germanic peoples.

It's either this or all I1 are Germanic. It doesn't make much sense to say that the Polish and Welsh branches are non-Germanic but the Norse and Bothnian ones are Germanic, as both split before the Z58 mutation appeared.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What is the use of living, if it be not to strive for noble causes and to make this muddled world a better place for those who will live in it after we are gone?", Winston Churchill.

It depends how you look at it. If Z58 is the only true Germanic branch, then I1-L22 (Norse, Ultra-Norse, Bothnian), I1-T2, I1-AS4, I1-P and I1b all evolved outside the core of Germanic culture that developed in the Bronze Age around Denmark, North Germany and southern Sweden. I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case and the I1d-Norse and I1d-Ultra-Norse were only absorbed in the Iron Age expansion of Germanic peoples.

It's either this or all I1 are Germanic. It doesn't make much sense to say that the Polish and Welsh branches are non-Germanic but the Norse and Bothnian ones are Germanic, as both split before the Z58 mutation appeared.

Huh? Why can't some founders be Germanic (Z58 MRCA, L22 MRCA, Z63 MRCA) and some not be (P MRCA, AS4 MRCA)? I don't think that "Z58 is the only true Germanic branch," at least not with what I know right now.

I1d is pretty Norse but its center of diversity is somewhere around southern Sweden IIRC, which seems within range to have been part of the Germanic core.

AS4, meanwhile, has a center of diversity squarely in Wales, and P has one in Pomerania. So a Germanic origin, or at least a Migration Period spread, is more questionable for them. That's all I see this saying.

Huh? Why can't some founders be Germanic (Z58 MRCA, L22 MRCA, Z63 MRCA) and some not be (P MRCA, AS4 MRCA)? I don't think that "Z58 is the only true Germanic branch," at least not with what I know right now.

I1d is pretty Norse but its center of diversity is somewhere around southern Sweden IIRC, which seems within range to have been part of the Germanic core.

AS4, meanwhile, has a center of diversity squarely in Wales, and P has one in Pomerania. So a Germanic origin, or at least a Migration Period spread, is more questionable for them. That's all I see this saying.

It's not a matter of whether the I1d (L22) branch was ever Germanic or not, but when it became Germanic.

We cannot talk of Germanic people before the Indo-Europeans moved to Scandinavia. The first wave was the R1a people of the Corded ware in the Early Bronze Age (2800-2500 BCE), but this branch being more closely related to Baltic and Slavic peoples, it is doubtful that it was already Proto-Germanic. The second wave came with R1b sometime between 2500 and 1200 BCE (perhaps several successive waves from Central Europe). I think it is only once R1b came into the mix that we can really talk about a (Proto-)Germanic culture and ethnicity shaping up. The cradle of Germanic "civilization" would thus correspond to the Nordic Bronze Age in Denmark, southern Sweden and coastal southern Norway, but ultimately expanding from Denmark and Scania.

My hypothesis here is that this original core around Denmark and Scania included only I1-Z58 lineages alongside R1a and R1b (+ minor lineages like G2a, J2 and E1b1b). The people in central and northern Sweden and Norway, as well as in Finland, would have been predominantly I1d (L22) and R1a by the time the true (Proto-)Germanic speakers moved up to from Denmark and Scania in the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age (the period circa 1200-200 BCE). After that, of course, I1d became Germanic. But I am pretty sure that the original core of Proto-Germanic culture never included central and northern Sweden and Norway. I also doubt that all the inhabitants of central and northern Sweden were wiped out by the Germanic expansion. They must have belonged to something, and the best candidate is I1d, justly because it is also found among the Finns and the Saami, who have R1a lineages but very little R1b, and do not speak Germanic languages.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What is the use of living, if it be not to strive for noble causes and to make this muddled world a better place for those who will live in it after we are gone?", Winston Churchill.

The Bastanae and peucini where germanic tribes in the carpathian and north of these mountains, they started the proto german-slavic linguistic connection ..........but this is another thread

You use curious namings for languages: 'gallic' was a celtic variant but Franks do'nt take a 'gallic' language but an italic one, the roman of Gaule. I am not aware of so 'proto-german-slavic' connection: what is that? i was aware of some loan words on the
two sides, not of a "proto-something"
to speake only of gen and on the spreading of Y-I1, I think like Maciamo and others that the present day evidence send us again and again to the Germanic people, by the way of 1- development from a knot around Denmark-South Scandinavia, on every direction 2- the Great Invasions (Volkerwanderungen?) 3- Vikings
I suppose the first Y-I1 was south the Baltic sea (what language? close to basque? finno-ugric?) before going to Scandinavia and that a lot of them mixed after that with a good number of Y-R1b-U106 bearers and others under influence of indo-european speakers (these others perhaps?) becoming the indentified 'Germans' and crossing to Scandinavia in a second wave (the more Western there) - hard to be sure but I think that roughly speaking Y-R1a bearers (Corded?) played a different role and that maybe they could be the speakers of the indo-european 'satem' language introduced in Scandinavia (a survey on substrat in lappish-saami language stating they was a sort of basque and a sort of 'satem' (? proto-balt-slavic: it could make sense) I-E before the adoption of finnic language in North Scandinavia) - I have to look again to the few things I have on archeology there, I know someones say that Y-R1a have two different origins in Scandinavia
evidently, individuals Y-I1 bearers could have emerged among the celtic world but a very few if any....

I mostly agree, however, I am rather confused, as assuming that both I1 and R1b-U106 came to Iberia with the Germanic migrations (which I believe is the case), why is there much more I1 than U106 in Iberia, and why is I1 relatively widespread (3%, a fair amount compared to other parts of Iberia) in places like Extremadura, and infrequent (0.5%) in places like Castilla&León?

present day scandinavian 'Germanic' people show a bigger amount of I1 than R-U106 (even the Danish people but fewer) - In Ireland and in Scotland too (Vikings) - and yet, Eastern Scandinavian have more I1 than Western in proportion... I think that the germanic invaders of High Middle Ages Spain had almost all of them an most ancient south scandinavian origin, didn' t?

Yes, I was showing the Visigoths' migrational history from their migration to Scandinavia (at which time they weren't differentiated from the Ostrogoths) until their arrival to Iberia. East Germanic has a linguistic, not geographical, connotation.
The Sueves were indeed West Germanic, specifically (along with others) the ancestors of the Upper German dialects spoken today. It should be noted, however, that only around 20,000-50,000 Sueves migrated to Iberia, while the rest migrated south and came to form part of the Alamanni (the name of Swabia comes from the Sueves).

I'm not found of old ancestors of modern dialects: the peculiarities of the South German (phonetically) owe more to previous non-germanic speaker people (celtic+rhetic) than to Suevi gone down from North - the same with Alemanni - it's said also that Suevi was, like Franks, new recombinaisons of diverses germanic tribes (and some celtic Belgae) -
for YI1, weight of East-Germanic (old appellation: W-Goths, O-Goths) could seam being heavier in Spain (But galica is a problem: Suevi only?)

It's not a matter of whether the I1d (L22) branch was ever Germanic or not, but when it became Germanic.

We cannot talk of Germanic people before the Indo-Europeans moved to Scandinavia. The first wave was the R1a people of the Corded ware in the Early Bronze Age (2800-2500 BCE), but this branch being more closely related to Baltic and Slavic peoples, it is doubtful that it was already Proto-Germanic. The second wave came with R1b sometime between 2500 and 1200 BCE (perhaps several successive waves from Central Europe). I think it is only once R1b came into the mix that we can really talk about a (Proto-)Germanic culture and ethnicity shaping up. The cradle of Germanic "civilization" would thus correspond to the Nordic Bronze Age in Denmark, southern Sweden and coastal southern Norway, but ultimately expanding from Denmark and Scania.

My hypothesis here is that this original core around Denmark and Scania included only I1-Z58 lineages alongside R1a and R1b (+ minor lineages like G2a, J2 and E1b1b). The people in central and northern Sweden and Norway, as well as in Finland, would have been predominantly I1d (L22) and R1a by the time the true (Proto-)Germanic speakers moved up to from Denmark and Scania in the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age (the period circa 1200-200 BCE). After that, of course, I1d became Germanic. But I am pretty sure that the original core of Proto-Germanic culture never included central and northern Sweden and Norway. I also doubt that all the inhabitants of central and northern Sweden were wiped out by the Germanic expansion. They must have belonged to something, and the best candidate is I1d, justly because it is also found among the Finns and the Saami, who have R1a lineages but very little R1b, and do not speak Germanic languages.

Well, you're right that the expansion of I1 out of its severe bottleneck seems to correspond roughly with the arrival of Corded Ware culture, which is prior to the Nordic Bronze Age and the corresponding likely arrival of R1b-U106 and the formation of proto-Germanic, and therefore I1 is older (TMRCA-wise) than Germanic peoples. But still, the diversity pattern and age of I1d subclades makes it seem to me that it expanded out of southern Sweden or nearby after the formation of proto-Germanic... at least, that's my best guess due to the relative youth of the Bothnian and "ultra-Norse" lines.

That leaves the question of what haplogroups were the central Swedish, Norwegian, Finnish, etc. peoples? I agree that if I reject I1-L22 as one, I ought to have a backup for what they were. My first thought is to look at the Saami and guess major N1c dominance. Is there a reason not to think that?

Well, you're right that the expansion of I1 out of its severe bottleneck seems to correspond roughly with the arrival of Corded Ware culture, which is prior to the Nordic Bronze Age and the corresponding likely arrival of R1b-U106 and the formation of proto-Germanic, and therefore I1 is older (TMRCA-wise) than Germanic peoples. But still, the diversity pattern and age of I1d subclades makes it seem to me that it expanded out of southern Sweden or nearby after the formation of proto-Germanic... at least, that's my best guess due to the relative youth of the Bothnian and "ultra-Norse" lines.

Actually I am increasingly thinking that I1 is far older than Nordtvedt 's estimates. It doesn't make much sense that the bottleneck happened only 5,000 years ago. I would place it between 7,000 and 10,000 years before present.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What is the use of living, if it be not to strive for noble causes and to make this muddled world a better place for those who will live in it after we are gone?", Winston Churchill.

Actually I am increasingly thinking that I1 is far older than Nordtvedt 's estimates. It doesn't make much sense that the bottleneck happened only 5,000 years ago. I would place it between 7,000 and 10,000 years before present.

I still find Nordtvedt's estimates ballpark correct and feel that I can make sense of them in light of history and archaeology. But let me play with your estimates and see if I come to the same conclusions if I do. If the TMRCA of I1 is 8,500ybp then here are some rough ages based on age ratios for subclades (very rough):

That makes AS4 and P more clearly non-Germanic. I1d predates Corded Ware here (allowing expansion with it, rather than Germanic peoples) and I1d3 and uN2, basically a couple of northward expansions of I1d, happened just before the creation of Germanic. In this case, it seems that some I1d would be part of the initial Germanic peoples, but not all of it would, including the tricky I1d3 subclade.

So it makes a coherent story, at least. I'll concede the point if we find something conclusive like I1d3 in an ancient Finnish Battle Axe Culture sample.

I'm not found of old ancestors of modern dialects: the peculiarities of the South German (phonetically) owe more to previous non-germanic speaker people (celtic+rhetic) than to Suevi gone down from North - the same with Alemanni - it's said also that Suevi was, like Franks, new recombinaisons of diverses germanic tribes (and some celtic Belgae) -
for YI1, weight of East-Germanic (old appellation: W-Goths, O-Goths) could seam being heavier in Spain (But galica is a problem: Suevi only?)

you are correct on suevi as being frankish as its also stated that in the early middleages, vorpommern and hinterpommern germans spoke this frankish/suevi language. The court in Brandenberg noted this as these areas where suzerity of brandenberg

I still find Nordtvedt's estimates ballpark correct and feel that I can make sense of them in light of history and archaeology. But let me play with your estimates and see if I come to the same conclusions if I do. If the TMRCA of I1 is 8,500ybp then here are some rough ages based on age ratios for subclades (very rough):

That makes AS4 and P more clearly non-Germanic. I1d predates Corded Ware here (allowing expansion with it, rather than Germanic peoples) and I1d3 and uN2, basically a couple of northward expansions of I1d, happened just before the creation of Germanic. In this case, it seems that some I1d would be part of the initial Germanic peoples, but not all of it would, including the tricky I1d3 subclade.

So it makes a coherent story, at least. I'll concede the point if we find something conclusive like I1d3 in an ancient Finnish Battle Axe Culture sample.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What is the use of living, if it be not to strive for noble causes and to make this muddled world a better place for those who will live in it after we are gone?", Winston Churchill.

What are the interclade TMRCA's between I1a-M21, I1b-M227, I1c-M507, I1d-L22, I12-L211 and I1f-L338?
The same question for the subclades of I1d-L22?

I'm having trouble finding them in a nice table for you. Before I was going primarily by the estimates Nordtvedt gave on his tree, but now that's collapsed into the PowerPoint that's awaiting additional calculations.

If you'd like to see Robb's calculations, he has them here, but he certainly gets older TMRCAs than Nordtvedt's method does.

I have looked at the data, but have had difficulty coming to any conclusion other than this: If there is any non-Germanic I1, it has become non-Germanic only recently. Let's look first at the distribution and dating of the major I1 subclades:
I1f: ~2000 years old with a particularly English distribution, although with some membership in Scotland, Ireland, Germany, Denmark, and even Poland.
I1d*: ~3000 years old with a very Nordic center of diversity but with a distribution everywhere, from Scandinavia to Turkey to Russia to the UK to Italy.
I1d1: ~3000 years old with a more southern center of diversity than I1d*, but still an obviously Germanic distribution, with a lot of membership in the UK, and interesting membership in Croatia.
I1d3: ~2000 years old with primary membership dominantly in Finland. I would suggest it to be Uralic if it wasn't for its obviously diverse (just less frequent) presence in the North Germanic countries, and its youth. As is, it looks like an expansion from Scandinavia on Finland.

So what of those spikes in interesting places? Not all I1 fits into subclades. Since Nordtvedt's STR clusters are the gold standard of I1 STR clusters, let's analyze them in the context of those:

.....
The spike in the Balkans: This one is the least researched due to the lack of samples from the region, but so far, the most common cluster for Balkans members seems to be T2. T2 is an odd cluster that stretches from Ireland to the Balkans and seems to have common membership everywhere but at its center of diversity, which could indicate a displacement of I1 from its center of diversity (maybe close to Poland?). But although it's somewhat mysterious, T2's distribution is clearly not Slavic or Illyrian, and everything about it indicates Germanic, possibly a combination of East, North, and West Germanic, with its appearance in the Balkans apparently East Germanic. Other clusters present in the Balkans include different AS clusters, which are also apparently Germanic. So barring us finding an interesting Balkans-exclusive cluster, it appears that the spike (and I should probably use "spike" loosely because it really isn't all that common) in the Balkans is also Germanic.
Altogether, I can't find any I1 that can't be explained by a Germanic migration. Can you?

in latest sampling from Serbia (103 people sampled)

there is 2.9% of I1-M253 and 4.9% of its downstream clade I1-P109 (I1d1 in Sparkey's text above)... that is quite high value...

btw. speaking of haplogroup I, there is also one individual (~1%) with I2b1c-P78 and 29.1% of I2a2

Combined, we see that I1 is rather young (current Nordtvedt estimate seems to be ~4000 years old) and has a very Germanic spread.
The question I'd like to investigate is: Is there any I1 distribution that can be explained by a non-Germanic migration, and if so, what characteristics does it take?

Nordvedt's math claims based on STR mutation assumptions are LONG blown out of the water. They are utter guesswork that is based on completely disproven STR mutational theories that he also proposed and are not scientific.

I1 is the only Hg that is pretty specific to only one tribe- the Svears - of what is today central sweden and norway. That is also where Kens own paternal Male ancestors come from and they are Svearish.
Svearish likely does not = 'german'. They simply conquer a long-time ruling Geatish population that were germanic and absorbed their language and culture over time before the conquest. Calling Svear I1 'germanic' is no different than calling the mongoloid 'Saami' Germanic, since they also absorbed Geatish language., culture and ancestry, in their homelands just north of the Svears, who were just north of the lands of the Geats.

My problem is the opposite of yours, in that I do not see any clear indication that I1 is ancestrally or tribally germanic since it is completely absent from the genetic archeology on the european continent until the dark ages expansion, when Svearish-descent swedes and norwegians start migrating south into a europe depopulated by plagues and later the 30 years war.

Originally Posted by sparkey

Eupedia members have pointed out odd stretches of I1 into the Finns
Altogether, I can't find any I1 that can't be explained by a Germanic migration. Can you?

I1 is present alone in Finns, while the 1/3 of R1b for instance in Swedes in absent in the Finns, because the Geats were not joining the Svears in the conquest of Finnmark. The Svears had conquered the Geats and taken control of scandinavia and the Svears (I1) alone took on the conquest of Finnmark. Thus, there is only I1 with no R1b as would be the case in the entire population of south sweden / geats had also been part of the invasion.

No one knows when the Svears got to central scandia, where they came from or who they are, but they are the source of I1, and we do not know that they are 'germanic' at all, anymore than there neighbors, the Saami.

Nordvedt's math claims based on STR mutation assumptions are LONG blown out of the water. They are utter guesswork that is based on completely disproven STR mutational theories that he also proposed and are not scientific.

According to you? I've discussed challenges to STR dating, here and elsewhere.

Originally Posted by pipinnacanus

I1 is present alone in Finns, while the 1/3 of R1b for instance in Swedes in absent in the Finns, because the Geats were not joining the Svears in the conquest of Finnmark. The Svears had conquered the Geats and taken control of scandinavia and the Svears (I1) alone took on the conquest of Finnmark. Thus, there is only I1 with no R1b as would be the case in the entire population of south sweden / geats had also been part of the invasion.

One thing is clear about Finnish I1 (I1d3), and that's that it is uniform and hence young. It is also apparently shared mainly by people on the Eastern part of Sweden. Since the diversity pattern is clearly Sweden->Finland, we can agree that it went from Sweden to Finland, but Finnish-type I1 isn't seen at the same levels anywhere else. That means that present distributions can't be explained by migration proportions alone, they must be combined with genetic expansions within the Finnish population.

That is to say, Finnish I1 is not clearly non-Germanic, based on what we know right now.

According to you? I've discussed challenges to STR dating, here and elsewhere.

One thing is clear about Finnish I1 (I1d3), and that's that it is uniform and hence young. It is also apparently shared mainly by people on the Eastern part of Sweden. Since the diversity pattern is clearly Sweden->Finland, we can agree that it went from Sweden to Finland, but Finnish-type I1 isn't seen at the same levels anywhere else. That means that present distributions can't be explained by migration proportions alone, they must be combined with genetic expansions within the Finnish population.

That is to say, Finnish I1 is not clearly non-Germanic, based on what we know right now.

I disagree with your logic.
I1 in Scandinavia is most likely a element of a early time when Ugric-Balto-Slavic populations were much father west than the Finnic-Ugric-Balt-Slavic populations we see or recognize today in the Baltic states, Finland, and north Russia. Everywhere I1 exists it is joined by R1a-M17, which offers a major clue to its origins.

The Svearish Ugric-Balto-Slavic element in central scandinavia was subordinate in tech and exploration for a long time to the militarily dominant Geats-Goths to their south, as the centuries pass and the culture and structure of the Geats are assumed by the Svears (I1).
As the Geats begin to decine in power due to losses in warfare and/or manpower the I1 Svears who are originally likely a Ugric/Balto-Slavic population, rise to power and take control of the Scandinavian continent and the Geatish population who does not flee.

I think you will find a component of I1 that is SNP differentiated and predates the Conquest of Finnmark by Sweden, as well as common Swedish I1 that are residue of the conquest of Finnmark and its aftermath. What you find almost zero of is R1b,
since the Goths-Geats were vassals already conquered in scandinavia by the Svears and not offered a co-equal status in Svearish conquest of the lands to the east.

There is no DNA evidence beyond the early fabrications Nordtvedt wove to guard flanks of his theories that insist this I1 was part of early continental germanic tribal groups. It is obvious without question that I1 is overwhelmingly 'Svearish', and most likely I1 orignated as a probably Northern Ugric-Balto-Slavic group.

The I1 you see amongst 'germanic' populations today is a result migrations from well-known population explosion and migration from Scandinavia into Northern Europe, at the same time of large depopulation of northern euro lands along with other regions of europe at the onset of the dark ages.

There is nothing tribally 'germanic' about I1 no matter how many nonsense early-tribal names Ken uses to attach to a I1 or R1b SNP/Str set.

No I1 is found in pre-dark ages samples on the continent because it was not a component of these germanic populations until the (probably Ugric-balto-slavic) Svear descended populations start to migrate into europe starting around 700-800 A.D. for historically well-known reasons and well document movements.

200 years ago, almost no males in Arizona or California had a R1b Y-line. Today, only 200 years later, most males in those places are R1b Y-line, so assuming I1 is 'germanic' in any way, when it is not even found amongst early germanic population samples, is like assuming a R1b-m269 californian is probably of Apache male descent.

A matter of only a few decades or centuries is of extreme import. At colonization of California, R1b males had a distinct advantage, just as at the onset of the dark ages, for specific reasons, the masses of Svear-descended landless males leaving scandinavia for the lands of the northern continent of europe had advantages to their colonization efforts that begin rather late in european history.

I disagree with your logic.
I1 in Scandinavia is most likely a element of a early time when Ugric-Balto-Slavic populations were much father west than the Finnic-Ugric-Balt-Slavic populations we see or recognize today in the Baltic states, Finland, and north Russia. Everywhere I1 exists it is joined by R1a-M17, which offers a major clue to its origins.

What archaeological culture are you mapping to this supposed Western "Ugric-Balto-Slavic" population? Just the Svears? Because I see some evidence of cultures that were likely proto-Germanic (Nordic Bronze Age) and I suppose those in Sweden and nearby, but outside of the Nordic Bronze Age, to have been Uralic. There may have been some extinct non-Germanic IE as well, but Balto-Slavic? There's no evidence of a truly Balto-Slavic people so early in Scandinavia, as far as I know.

Also, if I1 is oldest in Scandinavia, why is only I1-L22 apparently ancient there, with other I1 subclades (including the very commonly West Germanic I1-Z58) more ancient elsewhere? And although it's basically true that I1-L22 is a fellow traveller with R1a, that's not necessarily true for I1-Z58. The few places with no significant North Germanic, Corded Ware, or Slavic influence, but with West Germanic influence, indeed have some I1, but little R1a. Think former Wessex, South Wales, Western France...

Originally Posted by pipinnacanus

The Svearish Ugric-Balto-Slavic element in central scandinavia was subordinate in tech and exploration for a long time to the militarily dominant Geats-Goths to their south, as the centuries pass and the culture and structure of the Geats are assumed by the Svears (I1).
As the Geats begin to decine in power due to losses in warfare and/or manpower the I1 Svears who are originally likely a Ugric/Balto-Slavic population, rise to power and take control of the Scandinavian continent and the Geatish population who does not flee.

I just don't see anything to support this total language family and genetic dichotamy between the Svears and the Geats.

Originally Posted by pipinnacanus

I think you will find a component of I1 that is SNP differentiated and predates the Conquest of Finnmark by Sweden, as well as common Swedish I1 that are residue of the conquest of Finnmark and its aftermath.

What are you talking about? I1d3? I've already addressed that at length.

Originally Posted by pipinnacanus

What you find almost zero of is R1b,
since the Goths-Geats were vassals already conquered in scandinavia by the Svears and not offered a co-equal status in Svearish conquest of the lands to the east.

But if you're right, we should also find comparable levels of R1a, which we don't. The only logical conclusion I can see is a genetic expansion of I1d3 within the Finnish population.

And even if that wasn't the case, it's fairly obvious that levels of R1b-U106 vary within different Germanic populations, as do R1a levels, and to a lesser degree, I1 levels.

Originally Posted by pipinnacanus

There is no DNA evidence beyond the early fabrications Nordtvedt wove to guard flanks of his theories that insist this I1 was part of early continental germanic tribal groups. It is obvious without question that I1 is overwhelmingly 'Svearish', and most likely I1 orignated as a probably Northern Ugric-Balto-Slavic group.

Actually, as we've been finding out more about I1, it has begun to look more like I1 (or at least the I1 L22- clades, which is most I1) originated south of Scandinavia. Ancient Continental subclades have been identified through SNP testing and subsequent modal comparisons.

Originally Posted by pipinnacanus

The I1 you see amongst 'germanic' populations today is a result migrations from well-known population explosion and migration from Scandinavia into Northern Europe, at the same time of large depopulation of northern euro lands along with other regions of europe at the onset of the dark ages.

You still haven't addressed my objections to this regarding the subclade dichotamy.

Originally Posted by pipinnacanus

No I1 is found in pre-dark ages samples on the continent because it was not a component of these germanic populations until the (probably Ugric-balto-slavic) Svear descended populations start to migrate into europe starting around 700-800 A.D. for historically well-known reasons and well document movements.

200 years ago, almost no males in Arizona or California had a R1b Y-line. Today, only 200 years later, most males in those places are R1b Y-line, so assuming I1 is 'germanic' in any way, when it is not even found amongst early germanic population samples, is like assuming a R1b-m269 californian is probably of Apache male descent.

A matter of only a few decades or centuries is of extreme import. At colonization of California, R1b males had a distinct advantage, just as at the onset of the dark ages, for specific reasons, the masses of Svear-descended landless males leaving scandinavia for the lands of the northern continent of europe had advantages to their colonization efforts that begin rather late in european history.

No, saying that R1b is Apache isn't analogous, because I'm not talking about frequency, I'm talking about diversity and subclade analyses.